FYI - The second meeting of Acquisitions Integration Discussion Group has been scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 9th, from 12 pm - 1 pm EST. If interested in joining the meeting, please reach out to Dennis B. directly for a meeting invite. The first meeting recording is available here but will most likely expire by Oct. 18th due to EBSCO company policy
Mark your calendar - GOBI integration presenations/talks currently planned for Tuesday, Oct. 29th meeting at 1 pm EST
Next Acq SIG meeting, Friday, Oct. 11th, at 9 am EST
Business -
Discuss/review topics POs may have
Any additional thoughts/feedback regarding WOLFCon 2024?
(Back up - Discuss skipped Implementers Topics if time allows and if Martina S. is joining the meeting)
Discussion topics
Time
Item
Presenter
Notes
Time
Item
Presenter
Notes
:01
Housekeeping
Dung-Lan
FYI - The second meeting of Acquisitions Integration Discussion Group has been scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 9th, from 12 pm - 1 pm EST. If interested in joining the meeting, please reach out to Dennis B. directly for a meeting invite. The first meeting recording is available here but will most likely expire by Oct. 18th due to EBSCO company policy
Mark your calendar - GOBI integration presentations/talks currently planned for Tuesday, Oct. 29th meeting at 1 pm EST
Next Acq SIG meeting, Friday, Oct. 11th, at 9 am EST
If anyone has anything they would like to see this group discuss, reach out via the Slack channel or let Dung-Lan know, and it can be added to the agenda.
Aaron cleaned up Acq Implementer’s Topic page
:08
Updates
Dennis Bridges
Coming up on the end of the Ramsons release cycle.
Acquisitions functionality - everything slated for Ramsons is on track.
Have been a number of things that have come up last minute, but not really associated with acquisitions.
Feature added to ECS that allows a user to move an item or holding record from one tenant to another. Functionality needed to manage that is basically the same thing. In that case, it’s the same instance record (shared instance).
~:20 discussion by Sara regarding items ordered for one location and needing to be moved later to another location. Looks like they were received to stacks even though they were ordered to other locations.
This will not address that problem. In piece do have an edit history now. In current version, don’t show it all in the UI.
More concerned with not having associated connections broken. Can make a note originally ordered for reference room later moved to stacks. Can’t reconnect them, which is more important.
~:26 - Receiving status log
Possibly could display the location changes
This feature talking about consuming changes is all about maintaining references/connections. Will be all or nothing. If you change instance connection of POL all holdings and items are moved. If you move one item/holdings - will see modal:
Will show all of holdings and items that will be impacted
Sara - will the ability to split be coming? Very common scenario for periodicals and serials.
Can move items from one holding to another, some can be on each. But as far as instance record, they must be on the same instance. (e.g. move item to new holding on a different instance, it will move everything along with it)
Orders is listening and is going to do what it would expect to do if you were changing the instance connection of the POL.
If moving item from one holding to another holding - will listen and update holdings reference id, but nothing else. (on same instance)
This is in current sprint
~:33 Sara - scenario with moving items - will receiving history for items move to new holdings? What does my POL then reference?
That will depend - is it independent or synchronized? If independent, POL locations will not change. If synchronized will all update all the way back to the POL.
~:35 Kristin - Order a copy of title, order a copy of what turns out to be volume 2. When cataloging, want to move from its own separate record to the series record. Vol. 1 on record one and has own POL. If somebody moves item to the Vol. 1 instance and the same holdings record, the PO for Vol. 2 will update to Vol. 1 instance.
Then you could mark the instance that shouldn’t have been created to begin with for deletion? - Yes.
Does it matter at all if order is closed?
No it shouldn’t
Ramsons? → In progress at the moment, working on it in the current sprint
Barring any major obstacles, yes
Martina will review and make sure this resolves what it needs to
~:41 If working from an external system, this should still happen - But user will never see modal.
Julie Stauffer 12:41 PM This may be a really obvious question that has already been addressed, but will the new link also change the referenced title in the pol to match the new linked instance?
Yes, it would be as if you used the change instance connection feature
:44 - Kristin - Instance 1 Holding 1 Item 1 / Instance 2 Holding 2 Item 2 - Item 2 associated with POL. Want to move Item 2 to Holdings 1. What happens to Holdings 2? Is holdings 2 moving over to instance 1 as well? - Holdings would probably get moved, but would have no item associated.
Could we delete it? Yes. Would no longer be associated with POL unless it’s an independent order. But don’t think that would prevent you from deleting the holdings.
Moving forward should be able to resolve other nuances that don’t have time to resolve in this release. As we discover these things, need to create stories for them.
If items attached to Holdings 2 not attached to that POL wouldn’t they need to stay? Yes
Will have to test these scenarios to see how logic works
Probably makes more sense for holdings to stay on instance unless you’ve explicitly said to move the holdings
Gets a little gray if moving to different instance.
If nothing left referencing that holding, should the orders app just delete it?
Or should we keep it by default?
Have to do something about the instance anyways
:54
Implementer’s Topics # 136
Dennis Bridges
Martina - When ordering something don’t know exact amount. Often have a higher discount amount or lower when receiving invoice line. No way to edit discount on invoice line. Would need to go back to order and edit there.
Would love to have reflected what discount was
One approach to resolving this would be having adjustments in the POL - whatever adjustments there are, could use them on order lines and invoices
Would be good to have same solution on orders and invoice lines - some kind of alignment between the two.
Could the adjustment be created on purchase order line and then edited on the invoice line?
Two different systems for managing those fees, etc.
Order version - very simple and not detailed enough
Adjustments version - other end of spectrum, infinitely customizable
Either invoice adopts system used by orders or order adopts system used by invoices.
Which one do you prefer?
Would like invoice to listen to the POL - if it got entered, then make use of it. If everything is blank, let the person add what they need. Carry it over just like it carries over the price.
How do we account for it? Additional cost and discount are concepts that don’t exist in the invoice application. So, they would have to be interpreted as adjustments, which could be done. Could create an adjustment called additional cost and an adjustment called discount. Might not be the reality of what those things are (shipping, VAT, import fees). It would all still be lumped in one thing (very general if carried over). Vs. just allowing you to add adjustments in the POL. Instead of using additional cost and discount, add adjustments and then map directly to invoice line adjustments.
